Short Note : 1. It was a revision petition filed by the defendants against an order passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class I, Indore, whereby the value of the claim was reduced so that the suit was within the jurisdiction of the Court. Held: It cannot be disputed that the value of, the claim could be brought down in two ways; one if the plaintiff chooses to give up certain part of the claim and reduced the valuation of the claim so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of a particular Court. The plaintiff may amend suitably to bring it within the jurisdiction of that Court, but there may be cases where by a clerical error or by typing error wrong value might have been mentioned which apparently makes the claim not triable, by the Court in which it is filed, but in substance the value of the c1aim is triable within the jurisdiction of the Court and plaintiffs want to correct the clerical or the typing error. In such cases it cannot be said that the plaintiffs by amendment are seeking to reduce the value of the claim so that the suit may fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, in which the suit is pending. The decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel and decisions on which the trial Judge relied on will only come into play when the plaintiffs by amendment want to reduce or give up the part of the claim to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of the Court where the suit is pending. But in other category of cases where the plaintiff seeks relief the valuation of which is within the jurisdiction of the Court; but by mere clerical of typing error the figure has been so mentioned that it goes beyond the jurisdiction of that Court and in such a case the Court which is seized of the matter can always allow the amendment of the plaint. In the present case the finding arrived at by the trial Court that it was a mere typing or clerical error that the total amount of the claim has been typed against the claim for injunction. In the present case the finding arrived at by the trial Court that it was a mere typing or clerical error that the total amount of the claim has been typed against the claim for injunction. On the basis of this finding it could not be said that the claim as valued was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court below and therefore no grievance could be made that the Court below had no authority or jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the plaint. Consequently in the light of the circumstances of this case, it could not be said that the Court below had no jurisdiction to allow the application for amendment, Laljit Ranchhoddas v. Narottam Ranchhoddas, AIR 1953 Nag. 273, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bairagarh, Bhopal v. State Transport Appellate Authority, M.P., Gwalior and another, 1964 JLJ 637 , Panjoomal v. Dwarka Prasad and others, 1967 JLJ SN 30, Indorilal v. Indore Municipal Corporation, 1976 MPLJ SN 5, Narayan Prasad and others v. Dropadi Bai, 1966 JLJ SN 111, referred to. Revision dismissed.